[MD] Decision

[Horse]

Hi Platt

On 06/07/2010 00:07, Platt Holden wrote:
> Hi Horse, All:
>
> After Pirsig specifically warned against issuing a Papal Bull, now we have
> one.
>    

No - you have a considered decision made by the moderator of this forum. 
Twisting my decision for your own political ends is reprehensible.

> A triumph for political correctness.

Nonsense - twisting for political manipulation more like.

> A sad day for free speech.
>    

It would indeed be a sad day when I am prevented from running the forum 
that I have been running successfully for more than 10 years by those 
who wish to manipulate it for their own dishonest purposes.

> Who would have imagined that a site guided by Dynamic Quality "whose only
> perceived good is freedom" would come to this?
>    

So now deception, misrepresentation, lies and dishonesty are seen as 
Good. Who would have imagined such a truly desperate position? That 
truly would be a sad day if was perceived to be true.

But why haven't you addressed the issues that I have brought up, like 
providing unequivocal evidence that Pirsig does support the SOL 
interpretation? Is it because none exists? Because Pirsig really doesn't 
support Bo?
Or is it because it's easier to ignore the real issues of dishonesty and 
deception and try and divert attention away from them by blatant 
misrepresentation of the evidence which does exist showing that Pirsig 
most certainly does not support Bo's version of the MoQ.

Why not stop playing games and provide the goods? You can't can you? All 
you can do is protest against fictitious positions of your own imagination.

A very sad day indeed.


Horse

>
> On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Horse<horse at darkstar.uk.net>  wrote:
>
>    
>> Hi Folks
>>
>> I've taken the weekend to think about the recent posts and conversations
>> with regard to Bo's continued misrepresentation of Pirsig's position re:
>> SOL.
>>
>> I think Arlo has summed up the position correctly when he said:
>>
>> #############################
>> Arlo:
>> Bo's MOQ = the intellectual level IS SOM.
>> Pirsig's MOQ = the intellectual level is NOT SOM.
>>
>> Arguing one over the other is valid. Attempting to equate them, at the
>> expense of suggesting the author is too stupid to understand what he himself
>> "meant", is not.
>> ##############################
>>
>> To my mind (and that of the majority of others who have expressed their
>> views on MD) Pirsig has stated quite clearly that he does not see SOM/SOL as
>> the Intellectual level. This has been backed up by direct quotes from Lila's
>> Child and, in the absence of further evidence, it is reasonable to assume
>> that this is how Pirsig continues to see his position.
>>
>> As far as I'm aware, there are no corresponding quotes to show that Pirsig
>> does support SOM/SOL as the Intellectual level. This would mean that in
>> order to arrive at the position that he does support SOM/SOL = Intellectual
>> level one must use supposition, implication, inference etc.
>> Arguing this position in this way is valid but to say that it is Pirsigs
>> position that SOM/SOL = Intellectual level is not valid.
>> If direct quotes can be found to show that Pirsig supports SOM/SOL =
>> Intellectual level then I am quite prepared to change my position. By this I
>> do not mean that it is good enough to say that Pirsig implies it or that it
>> can be inferred that Pirsig supports it etc. I want actual quotes from
>> Pirsig to say that he supports SOM/SOL = Intellectual level.
>>
>> Bo, and those that support Bo's position that SOM/SOL = Intellectual level,
>> must make it quite clear that it is not Pirsigs position that SOM/SOL =
>> Intellectual level when arguing for this position. To do otherwise is
>> dishonest and misleading.
>>
>> Should Bo continue, as has done over the weekend, to insist and declare
>> that Pirsig supports the SOL, is the originator of the SOL etc. then he will
>> be removed from MD. Anyone else who maliciously, mischievously or otherwise
>> does the same will be similarly removed.
>> As far as I'm concerned this is an issue of honesty and integrity and if
>> this isn't understood by those purporting to understand an issue that is at
>> the heart of moral behaviour then some time may be needed to contemplate
>> their reasons for being here in the first place. I think it is very
>> unfortunate that it has come to this.
>>
>> I have said repeatedly that I do not want this to happen, but apparently it
>> is not understood by some and is instead misrepresented by trying to turn
>> this into a censorship issue. This is unfortunate but expected considering
>> that the majority of those claiming censorship are the very ones to whom
>> this position is of importance.
>> I believe that I have tried very hard to avoid this over the last few weeks
>> and,as such, will have absolutely no qualms about removing Bo or anyone else
>> should he/they continue to misrepresent Pirsigs position and will do so with
>> a clear conscience should this situation persist.
>>
>>
>> Horse
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>      
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>
>    

-- 

"Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid."
— Frank Zappa